I've been ruminating over these thoughts for some time. Now they've been brought to a head because I'm interviewing a prospective slave candidate. I'm trying to explain to him what a master is. The term isn't synonomous with top. A master, in the broadest terms, is a person who is knowledgable and skilled in a discipline, field or profession; he is a master of a body of knowledge sufficient to question, work on and expand that field. He has earned real authority. That was the original idea behind a university Master's Degree. Therefore, for a leatherman to be a master he must have considerable experience in SM and the ways of the leather/SM subculture. Even a bottom can be a master. The preference one has for dominance or submission does not apply. It is experience, knowledge and dedication that counts. I've known many bottoms whom I would define as masters, and I've known many topmen who liked to think of themselves as masters, but I could not consider them masters for various reasons. A leathermaster has respect for other leatherfolk who deserve it, and he grants that respect to those he does not know as a common courtesy until he learns otherwise. He also has respect for his slave. A moral and ethical interest in preserving and teaching the leather way of life, and a humility born of his realization that he does not know it all characterize the mindset. His ego is secure; he need not display it. Therefore, a leathermaster is confident of his knowledge and should expect respect for his skilled use of it. My view of how a master should behave is any way he wants to, but he must knowingly bear the responsibility and consequences of his behavior. These are things he must impart to novices, be they bottoms, slaves or other topmen.

SM is a discipline, apart from the fantasy discipline and punishment applied in scenes. It is a body of knowledge and skills used to produce desired effects on both players. Like any discipline, SM must be studied and practiced for one to become good at it. It requires hard work. However, SM is more of a lifestyle than most fields of knowledge because it involves interpersonal relationships and eroticism. In that way it is unlike a profession that one leaves at the workplace.

Being a top or bottom is one of personal preference and inclination, and there are many who enjoy being both - switching. But inclination, preference and desire do not make one a master. Only dedication and hard work will suffice. The desire to be a master arises from the love of knowledge and the satisfaction in using well one's acquired skills. Any discipline molds its practitioner; it confers a responsible use of power and inherent constraints against its abuse, absolute certainties vanish; there are questions that cannot be answered. Mastery teaches a subtle knowledge beyond the facts of the field. The most important aspect of becoming a master is learning self-control - mastering oneself. It becomes an integrated and inseparable part of one's life. True mastery of any field could be a spiritual calling, just as valid as those who take the path to become spiritual masters. Mastership also requires a duty to seek out and pass on the knowledge to interested and talented novices. This authority, then, can be respected and submitted to by those who can recognize it. Therefore when a master requires submission and/or worship from a willing bottom the master is representative of a higher power and ethic that is greater than the fallable person. The bottom should recognize that he gives up to a higher ideal embodied in the master, as well as to the person. It is these qualities and values that we recognize in mastership.

As stages of growth in the SM/leather world there are at least three types of bottom: the first is interested only in his own pleasure and views the top as the means to that pleasure; he is focused solely on himself. This is the proverbial "pushy bottom." Only a few topmen can tolerate this attitude. The second type gets off in submitting to a top, but he is getting off on his own act of submission. At least here he recognizes the top's right to pleasure and control of the scene. The third type gets off on submitting and pleasing a particular master. Whatever the master wants is this bottom's pleasure. He is focused on this master. This mindset is the minimum requirement to be a slave, but a slave may be a fourth type who has no limits and can live for his master without any other desire. The slave must master being a slave. Obviously, this type is very rare.

Conversely, there must be at least three types of tops who have similar mindsets as the aforementioned bottoms. Each will choose the other who suits the mindset. A topman who cares nothing for the bottom cannot be a master. Those who want that special master/slave relationship are willing to give as much to the slave as they want from him. Erotic dominance and submission may drive the relationship to a degree, but it takes more committment, a desire to teach and learn, for intimacy, trust and self-realization. It requires sensitivity from both.

Then there are two styles of topping: 1. the emotionally distant, authoritarian top and, 2. the nurturing, encouraging daddy. Both may deliver the same level of SM stimulation and discipline to their bottoms, but the power and emotional interactions are distinctly different. The slave-training master may need to keep an emotional distance to be able to deliver a level of discipline and control to get unquestioning obedience from a slave. Or in a casual scene where intimate relationship is unwanted, the top may protect himself from emotional attachments by acting distant. The daddy role should be the more intimate one, but daddies still are expected to have demands of their sons. Yet there is a continuum of gradations between the two styles. Bottoms may prefer one or the other and seek out that type of top. Or a fantasy scene may demand that the top play one of these roles. Also consider that there are active and passive tops and bottoms. The active top goes after the bottom, the passive top wants to be approached by an active bottom.

Here, a few considerations about the vulnerability of topmen's and bottoms' egos to the other are appropriate. The topman's ego may be very fragile. His self-image as a top depends on obtaining the submission of bottoms and the recognition of his topman status in the community of his peers. It is easy for an experienced bottom to destroy the carefully built scene ego of an unsure, inexperienced topman who needs to feel in control. A topman can destroy a bottom's ego, too. A bottom needs a healthy ego to psychically survive a scene, especially one of humiliation. This strengthening of the ego will occur by experiencing scenes under competent topmen. A master has survived these ego crises and is secure in his abilities. His ego need not be worn on his sleve as some swaggering but insecure and inexperienced topmen do to project their self-perceived psuedo-power.

Many experienced bottoms can take the top role when the situation warrants it, although that is not their ideal preference. They know SM so well that they are quite capable topmen. It appears that dedicated topmen often have more difficulty in switching roles; this may be viewed as loss of mastery, loss of face or the feared loss of control and was once a prevalent ideology in the SM subculture. A true master need not have this fear.

I believe that out there somewhere is someone who can be a top even for the most dedicated topman, as well as the bottom from SM heaven who can be a bottom to the most dedicated bottom. When these fortunate meetings occur, both know without doubt it must be that way. There is no ultimate top or bottom. It only exists in personal relationship.

Committment to a master/slave relationship must be nearly total, more than in conventional relationships. It is living an ongoing SM scene, a permanent division of power sharing. Tremendous focus and attention must be paid to every detail. It is hard work for both, but an enormous responsibility for the top, a reason why so few such relationships succeed. Most leatherfolk wish only to play SM games and live in conventional relationships. This is OK, too. The intensity of an occasional SM scene can reach the same heights as the master/slave relationship. Its effects are meaningful and lasting.

I like to think of the chains that bind a slave represent emotionally binding both master and slave together. Chains or a collar can be like a wedding ring, however a more intense reminder of the dedication to the relationship. The slave has willingly given up his freedom; now he is the master's responsibility. He is bound to honor and obey. I suspect that the slave mentality operates primarily on the slave's receiving a lot of attention irrespective of what is done to him. And the master's freedom to do anything to him can produce a spontaneous excitement for both.

For some bottoms and slaves being bound produces more submission and a greater sense of freedom in giving up. Knowing that one is helpless to resist often decreases resistance. Or one may futilely resist against these consensual bonds. Inability to resist is a strange kind of freedom. There is, paradoxically, an absolute and simultaneous vulnerability and security that is ultimately empowering. It focuses the bottom's mind and body to be receptive to the treatment of the master.

The utmost test of a bottom's or slave's discipline is to command him to remain motionless while he is unfettered and subjected to an intense SM technique or punishment. When bound, the slave cannot resist and must take whatever the master desires. But when he is unrestrained he must rely on his training and willingness to submit to control his reactions so that he will not disobey the master's commands. The slave mentality should set no limits on the master's treatment, but there must be limits to avoid harm, most often set by the master on himself. After all, the slave is a person who, by law, must not be held in involuntary servitude. These relationships must be mutually consensual. A real slave carries components of resistance and self-oppression; the consensual SM slave doesn't want to resist.

Masters should consider that a bound bottom can let go completely or be forced to relinquish control, but the unrestrained bottom must exercise self-control and maintain some self boundaries. The two have decidedly different psychological effects. If a top wishes to push a bottom beyond his ability of self-control, the bottom had best be restrained for the safety of both and the fulfillment of the master's wishes.

Some master/slave relationships are intentionally temporary. An experienced bottom may serve as a total slave a trusted master for only a night or weekend. A master may insist that the novice bottom in training act as a slave during their scenes to instill discipline and respect, contingent upon the bottom's self-discovery and decision to be a free bottom, slave or to take the road to becoming a topman, and then perhaps a master. This is a situation of mentor and student, the student yielding to the superior knowledge and skill of the master. The master/slave relationship need not necessarily be a lover relationship. There must be caring and sexual chemistry between the two or that need of the student for instruction from a respected teacher. Because they enjoy the training process, many masters like to train slaves without intent to make the relationship permanent. When the slave has passed training he may be sent on his way to find a permanent master.

Many masters and slaves want only a limited master/slave relationship, usually that of a sexual slave who is submissive only in SM scenes and to the master's sexual wishes, otherwise he is free to live his own life. Other masters want a full-time slave who serves as a live-in manservant, houseboy, gardner, sexual plaything, etc., and has no independent life or work. Keeping this type of slave requires finances sufficient to provide support, although this support need only be minimal because the slave needs few things. Masters who are capable of providing this kind of care often set up insurance and perhaps provisions in their wills for their slaves. However, most full-time slaves must work, and the master accomodates to this situation, but he may require that he control the slave's earnings. Perhaps an even better ideal would be for the master to send out his slave to work for him!